IBM Tech Detects & Changes Spin of Single Electron

An anonymous reader writes "Looks like we have another step forward in Quantum Computing - IBM has discovered how to detect and change the spin of a single electron. Won't be long before we're all solving impossible encryption problems. "

so now that we can spin one electron

[leav]

so now that we can spin one electron, it wont be long before we can do the same to the trillions and trillions of them, right? wrong assumption.

Innovation

[ggambett]

It's good to see some tech companies actually innovate...

And then quantum encryption

[cyngus]

Won't be long before we're all solving impossible encryption problems.

Of course by then we'll all be using quantum encryption techniques.

Breaking Encryption?

[redog]

This is the sort of situation where the Internet is more a hinderence than a help. Over time discussions such as this will polarize the lay community either for or against a particular area of research, wher two areas of research strive to achieve similar goals.

Public Opinion greatly influences funding of research, so I hope that premature dabates of which technology is superior, won't shape decisions to fund one or the other, since ther is the possibility that one or the other area of research might hit a brick wall at some time in the future, at which point it wll be nessecery to pursue the other area of study. It would be bennefitial to all to have continued both areas of research in parrelel. Don't get me wrong. I don't believe that discussions like this alone will influence the course of research, but merely that the colaborative enviroment the Internet offers will promote (suprisingly) colaboration to the point where only one research path will be pursued by both teams, working together, rather than competing, as it were.This is an area whewre competition is a positive thing in academic research. I merely question the degree to which the Internet actually contributes to this.

Re:Consumer Quantum Computers

[k98sven]

Personally.. I kind of doubt that they may ever become 'mainstream'. A quantum computer isn't an all-around "improved computer", it's a completely different paradigm.

So the question here is: Why would they replace traditional computers? There is no real reason to think that they will replace conventional computers, except for in the areas in which they are better.
(and that's not likely to be every area)

Quantum computers are inherently much more complex than traditional ones. Thus, they will likely always be more expensive to build.

It's 2004, and we're still using internal-combustion automobiles. Cathode-ray tubes for data visualization. Nearly all elevators still use ordinary cables and breaks. We don't have nuclear reactors in our basements. And so on..

The moral here is: Just because a technology is better in some respect, does not mean it's going to replace an older one. Especially if it's not better in every respect, and not cheaper.

Re:What happens if encryption becomes impossible

[caluml]

Silly arse. OK, post all your credit card records, emails, bank details, usernames and passwords here. Record and make available all your phone calls. IT'S NOT JUST CRIMINALS THAT USE ENCRYPTION!

Re:What happens if encryption becomes impossible

[robertjw]

So what do we do if quantum computers can decrypt anything in almost real-time?

use quantum computers to encrypt everything to start with. I'm sure an algorithm can be written that would take a quantum computer a very long time to decrypt - it just may have to be run on a quantum computer to start with.

Sure it will

[Nom du Keyboard]

Won't be long before we're all solving impossible encryption problems.

Sure it will. Right after I receive my new, wall-sized television in a poster tube, unroll it, and hang it on my wall -- as I've been promised will happen any time now for the last 20 years.

10 jokes modded up and not one encryption comment?

[avi33]

First of all, we won't be be able to crack any encryption.

Private-key encryption will still be just as safe (most likely).

Public key encryption based on factoring will be the first casualty.

Given the fact that patches, fixes, and reimplementations are developed and administered all the time, there's no reason to think that fixing vulnerable systems won't be a fairly trivial re-implementation of some sort. Even if a bunch of systems are left unpatched, it's a long way from IBM labs to some script kiddie's Quantum iPod.

There will be market-hyped hysteria, and a massive cottage industry of re-implementations of security protocols. Think Y2K but worse.

gears? we don't need no stinking gears [usrnull.com]